Warfare in our times
On a sidenote: I did not use the word "modern" in the title for two reasons: One, to avoid associations with a popular video game series and two, because it seems arrogant to refer to the current times as "modern" -- I'm sure people in 500 or even 100 years would disagree.
Anyway, having followed the news for many years now and having researched quite a few wars and battles from all of human history, I have a few questions about wars, warfare and battles in our modern times. Perhaps someone here knows more about this topic than I do.
First of all, I'd like to clarify that I'm not (primarily) talking about "asymmetric warfare", i.e. terrorism, guerilla tactics, insurgencies and the likes. I am aware that the overwhelming strength of the western world/US/NATO in combination with the threat of nuclear war has mostly prevented large scale military engagements, especially between major powers. That much is fairly obvious.
However, what still confuses me is how even more or less conventional warfare (even if it is in the context of a revolution/civil war) works nowadays.
To better illustrate my point, let's look at the WW2 Nazi Germany invasion of Denmark. I know it is not exactly a recent example, but in terms of casualties (one of my main points) it seems comparable to most recent wars. The Denmark invasion basically took only a day until the Danish government surrendered in the face of overwhelming German force. Okay, that much makes sense, they were hopelessly outnumbered and tried to minimise casualties (although it is still surprising how they did not even attempt to resist anywhere).
Most of the same seems to apply in our times -- wars often end without either side suffering that many casualties, particularly deaths. Ever since Vietnam, especially US/western casualties were extremely low: 2003 invasion of Iraq, a mere ~200 men died on the Coalition side (in the invasion itself; all numbers in this thread are from Wikipedia, so don't quote me on the exact figures). Even in Afghanistan, "only" about 3,500 Coalition soldiers died in the 13 years (!) since 2001. In the invasion itself, a tiny fraction of that number applies, most of these deaths were due to guerilla warfare et al.
Now of course every death is a tragedy and I'm not trying to belittle anyone's death (or the serious injuries many suffered in the war) whatsoever. Still, it does seem surprising to me that what seems, to a layman, a conflict between two forces of often several tens or even hundreds of thousands of armed soldiers -- let alone the air support, the tanks, the artillery etc. -- ends with a few hundred casualties only.
Of course on the side opposing the US, the losses are often greater -- in the 2003 Iraq invasion, about 30,000+ Iraqi troops died. Well, that sounds like a lot and it is. However, keep this in mind: the western coalition consisted of 265,000 troops and Iraq itself had about 470,000 troops, not counting 600,000ish reserves! All in all, you had a conflict in which over half a million soldiers were engaged (even much more than that if you count the Iraqi reserves), a conflict that ended with the complete destruction of a regime and "conquest" of the country. Despite that, less than 10% of that regimes' troops were killed.
Naturally, I realise that real life is not a total war game and that you don't usually (or even often) have anything close to 50% casualties. Still, to a layman the comparatively low number of deaths seems surprising.
There are plenty of other examples. Look at the 2008 Russian-Georgian 'war'. Russia had about 10,000 men in South Ossetia at least, later on they invaded Georgia proper. Georgia also had at least as many troops on the border and about 37,000 men in total. Russia had much more than that back home, of course. Despite that, Georgia lost maybe 200 soldiers, Russia/South Ossetia perhaps 100. 300 losses in total in a conflict between at least 10,000 and 10,000 men. How?
Again, I realise that wars nowadays aren't that straightforward and they don't tend to be wars of complete destruction or annihilation, unlike e.g. some WW2 battles (see particularly on the eastern front). Still, I struggle to find any war in the last few decades that resulted in any major amount of losses for either side, at least compared to their total amount of troops.
Kargil War, the 1999 India-Pakistan war -- 30,000 Indians vs 5,000 Pakistani, about 500 Indian losses, 300-400 Pakistani.
Libyan Revolution/Civil war (2011) -- Rebels, 17,000 volunteers, up to 200,000 by the end of the war vs the Libyan regime, 20-40,000 troops/paramilitaries. Losses: about 5000 on either side. Again, considering that this is a group of angry revolutionaries facing off against a dictator who would do everything to save his regime, the numbers seem fairly small, also taking into account the western air support.
Kosovo War (1998/1999) -- tens of thousands of Yoguslav soldiers vs KLA and NATO, perhaps 2-3,000 soldiers killed on both sides combined.
Or look at the recent annexation of the Crimea. A few thousand, later tens of thousands of Russian soldiers left their bases and/or entered Ukraine, Ukraine had several tens of thousands of troops in Crimea alone. Almost nothing happened, the Ukrainian troops were essentially disarmed and kicked out without a fight.
Same for the conflict in the east of the country now. Ukraine supposedly (on paper) has 90,000 active personnel and 1,000,000 reserve troops. The separatists have perhaps a few thousand men. In this conflict, only 300 soldiers and armed insurgents have been killed so far. How is this possible? Where are the 90,000 Ukrainians?
----
There are probably many more striking examples than these, but this should provide a decent backdrop for the more abstract questions:
Why are casualties so low in warfare nowadays? As shown above, many of these conflicts are conventional, so the "asymmetric warfare" explanation doesn't cut it. Nor does the "we are afraid of nukes and thus avoid war" reasoning work, seeing that almost none of these conflicts had nuclear powers facing each other (aside from the Kargil War). This raises a few questions for me:
Do all of those armed forces that are often listed really exist? What about the 470,000 Iraqi troops in 2003? What about the 90,000 Ukrainian men? I realise that a country cannot always mobilise all of its troops (especially in a short amount of time), nor can they afford that for a long period if not desperately necessary. I also understand that real life soldiers aren't "Total War" berserkers that fight till the last man standing. And that a country cannot just send all of its troops into one region (see Ukraine).
But still -- how are those fairly low numbers of casualties explained in the light of modern weapons, aircraft, artillery, tanks and so on? Why do so few people die in conflicts that often last for weeks, months or even years? It seems like civilians often and quickly die in large numbers -- thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. But soldiers?
It almost seems like nowadays, armies or countries basically never try to defend any position for a prolonged period of time. Even without heavy losses, most armies seem to retreat most of the time in the face of serious opposition or attacks. 2008 Russo-Georgian war -- Russia invades Georgia proper, Georgia simply pulls back without firing much of a shot (obvious from the <300 losses). 1998 Indian-Pakistani War -- a few hundred die, then some sort of settlement is reached. Not even the 35,000 men present fight till any sort of real conclusion (let alone the main armies of those countries). 2003 Iraqi War -- the regime is toppled with less than 10% of losses in the regular forces, let alone the 650,000 reserves.
The same in Ukraine now -- how can an army of 90,000 lose a mere 150 soldiers yet still be unable to take back a few cities?
Or in Iraq just now -- 270,000 men on paper. A few thousands (perhaps 10,000) ISIS troops take over half the country, without many (non-civilian) casualties on either side. How?
Of course I understand poor morale, poor equipment (see Ukraine or Iraq for both of that), fear of a superior enemy (Russia/Georgia 2008), fear of a nuclear war (Kargil War) and so on. But still, does that really explain the almost complete lack of any serious, major modern battles (even in conventional warfare!) and the lack of any serious amount of losses on either side? I just find this topic extremely interesting.
To sum it up, there are a few aspects which seem to be present in most conventional (!) conflicts nowadays:
1) Both sides tend to have huge amount of troops on paper.
2) However, those troops never really seem to meet in any sort of major engagement. Instead, you constantly read about how force X pulled back and force Y took over a city or region.
3) But while that happens, the other force tends to lose almost no troops. So why did it pull back in the first place?
This really makes me wonder -- why the (comparatively) low amount of losses on almost all sides in almost all wars nowadays, even when a regime is toppled completely or a country taken over? And do the huge numbers of so-called "active personnel" listed on Wikipedia -- 270,000, 40,000, 470,000 -- really exist? Or are they more theoretical and never play any real role on the battlefield? If yes, why?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Farnan
